[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: welcome to "the young turks." we have a big show ahead for you guys. should the terrorists in the boston marathon have the miranda rights? of course. should it affect immigration bills and gun bills we'll discuss all that have tonight. before we get to any of that we've got another terrorist attack, but luckily this time it was averted. it was in canada, and we worked

together with the canadian authorities. and here is the announcement that it has been aevaluatorred. >> the rmcp confirmed that there was a al-qaida-supported attack. had this plot been carried out it would have resulted in innocent people being killed or seriously injured. >> cenk: now one of the things said about this attack is really puzzling. quote, the two men had direction and guidance from al-qaeda elements located in iran. now that makes no assistance because al-qaeda and sunni eight each other. that's like there was guidance go the united states. at least they made sure that it wasn't carried out no matter where they're from.

of course, we're going to talk about boston and the rights associated withdhozvt dhozahar tsarnaev. but in order for me to do that i need to bring in my panel. we have joe williams from political reporter commentator and of course, national coverage editor--whatever reporter with politico. i'm reading all of these. and beth fouhy for yahoo news, and kevin cirilli. you can tell i'm in a fun mood. we want to give you an update. everyone knows that the younger brother was caught on friday

after a shootout. i was watching all of joe's tweets on it. that's how i found out about it, literally. but let's watch that on abc. >> the bomb suspects now facing the death penalty. among those who lost their lives, 29-year-old crystal campbell the first of the victims to be laid to rest. the search for an explanation as the fbi questions 19-year-old suspect hospitalized, wounded in the neck but writing some answers. >> cenk: oh so now guys there are would aspects to this. first, the white house and government over all and the fbi used the public safety exception in the beginning to say that they did not have to read him

his miranda rights. and then this morning a magistrate went to his hospital room finally read him his rights. and he will not be charged as an enemy combative but as someone in the system. joe, let me start with you. should she have--should they have used that in this case or should they have mirandaizeed him right away. >> my opinion is they should have mirandaizeed him right off the bat. terrorist tv shows where you have a terror suspect in the room, there is a bomb ticking out there somewhere that's where the exemption is for. but remember when they caught zhorkar, that's when they order a release from boston. they didn't find him until some guy who had been inside all day wentouts and looked in his boat and saw him right there. the exception in this case is kind of moot. never mind the fact that they have tons and tons of forensic

evidence linking him, bombs and different kinds of device. i think it was an over emphasis on their part to let everybody know that this thing is well in hand. >> cenk: beth or kevin, either one of you think that the they were right to use the public safety exemption and not mirandaize him. >> i say they were doing it--go ahead. >> i think you're hearing from conservatives such as lindsay graham and john mccain that this could be a political issue. they say they want him tried as an enemy combatant and the argument is they want as much information as they can out of this 19-year-old who reportedly plotted with his older brother who has ties overseas to potential terrorists. regardless of my opinion the argument from the other side is they just want to make sure that they're getting all of this information to prevent future terrorist attacks. >> cenk: go ahead, beth.

>> i was going to say the public safety exemption does not seem to be a huge issue. it was a matter of them taking a precaution. we knew that there was a ton of explosive material around, that both of these young men were using, had their hands on and had access to. they were throwing bombs and explosives at the cops during the fire fight overnight. they were find with ieds in their possession. the car that was carjacked when the cops recovered that it had ieds in it. it seemed as though there were possibilities that they had placed explosive devices elsewhere. that was probably the justification for making in a exemption, to make sure there was not something out there that has yet not exploded. it was not a huge item of rights to take that precaution. >> cenk: i'm going with joe they should have mirandaizeed

him right away. look, it was from a 1984 case. there was a rapist, and the victim said he has got a gun but they couldn't see the gun. so behavior mirandaizeing him the cops asked him where is the gun. before finding out asking if there were other bombs, beth i'm with you. but now they broadened it, besides asking about the becomes, ask him about other items. joe, it sounded like you were going to say one last thing on this. >> the last summation is in boston they've seen terror trials before, the richard reed trial. the shoe bomber, there was no miranda exception even then when there could and there was a direct link to an al-qaeda plot, and they ordered people to stay inside so they were confident that there was no explosive devices to begin with.

i think it was a show of force by the federal government to let everybody know that they were doing everything they can short of torture, which is now illegal, to get information out of him. >> cenk: let me see if i can take this to the next level. peter king said he should be a combatant. >> i want the intelligence to save americans lives. and that's the only way to do that effectively if he's treated as enemy combatant. >> there is fingerprints, direct testimony from one of the people who had his legs blown off that he recognized him. they admitted to the driver of the car that they hijacked, that they were the bombers. so i think there's going to be a great deal of evidence put together to be able to convict him, and it should likely be a death penalty case under federal law. i believe that the federal confidence in doing this at this time is extraordinary.

>> cenk: all right, beth what are your thoughts here? any reason to call him an enemy combatant, are you in favor or opposed to it. >> well, it's not my opinion it's the law. he's not an enemy combatant. he's captureed on american soil. it has to be shown that he was in control or in concert with an foreign enemy. in this case it didn't meet that standard, so the law took care of itself. >> cenk: that's true. they called jose pedea made up how he was a dirty bomber and then later when they were forced to go to trial they said, yeah, well, turns out he wasn't a dirty bomber, but he was doing other things not related to us, but still terror, and he's in jail now but isn't that the problem, kevin, when you trust people to the government to just label the people enemy combatant correctly, that's not again

the american system. >> in that case he was actually in a military prison and was actually transferred to a miami federal prison. you're right jay carney rallied off a long list of terrorist who is were tried in civilian courts. president obama back in 2009 said he no longer wanted to use the term enemy combatants. it's almost been removed from this administration's vocabulary even though we've heard it quite recently. we've heard this when there is a terrorist blot from conservative. they want to be sure that they're tried as an enemy combatant. not this time, and like everyone has been saying the case against this guy is so significant that they shouldn't have a hard time putting him away. >> cenk: joe, let's do it right. where they said, i didn't

mirandaize him right away, and i used this public safety exception. but when the time had come, we're going to trial him in trials so liberals get off my back. >> the cynical view is is that's exactly what happened, but none of us are cynics. >> cenk: no, no. >> one thing you have to keep in mind. first, this is what conservatives do. the whole notion that this guy is some scary dude that we have to bring the full force of the law against him. this is what this arms argument does. it says that we as the united states government has to do everything that it can short of a kangaroo trial with richard

reed and others in the middle, never before have we had a situation where the federal government was not going to bring the full weight of the law, and that very good investigative techniques resulted in convictions. i can't remember the last time a terrorist walked out of a courtroom and was found not guilty. enemy combatant is a scare tactic and moot because we have enough information to charge as terrorist, chance are the case is close to a slam dunk and any chance of an acquittal is moot. >> cenk: i believe in the american justice system, i really do. and i believe in our prisons. they say we can't bring them up here because we have to keep them in gitmo, are you kidding? we have a super max in colorado, ain't nobody going to break out of that.

come back because we're going to talk about different aspects of this. we had cybersecurity but did it help? not really. meanwhile we're passing laws, we'll talk about it, and did it matter that they were muslims and will it affect legislation going forward. "the young turks" coming back. [ ♪ music ♪ ] >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: that of course is video, the final gun battle on friday when they finally took

dzhokhar tsarnaev, and when they did, by the way, he had a bullet hole through his throat and out the back of his neck. that's why he can't talk to the cops. apparently he's giving written answers. his brother of course, died, was shot head to toe. that's 200 different--at least it hundred shells on the ground after that gun battle. it's amazing that he survived. the question is could we have caught them before all of this if we had the right the surveillance? well, it's interesting because we spent about $3.2 million on that industry, and we've got 30 million surveillance cameras according to research, throughout the united states. now that's an awful lot of cameras. but in boston they say that there is, compared to other cities, not that many. 655 cameras that are operated by the city and of that they're

mainly in the subway system. in new york, you have 6,000. in london you have 400,000 cameras operated by the government but crimes solved per thousand cameras in britain is only one per thousand. those don't seem like great numbers. and of course it has down sides. let me bring my principal to discuss all this. we have joe williams from washington, beth fouhy from yahoo news and kevin cirilli from politico. as we look at all this, let me ask you first of all too little surveillance in boston? too much surveillance over all in the country? what is your general thought? >> well, what was remarkable was they chose a site where they had to know there were thousands of people standing there with cameras recording the marathon. how they could elude being captured on film or video everyone has got a smart phone.

i'm holding my smart phone in my hand. everyone has got one and everyone is taking pictures when their loved one or friend is crossing the finish line. pictures are going to be taken regardless. and we have also gotten used to the fact that there are public operating cameras by governments peering in on us. that's the way it is now. maybe it's so normative until you start talking about numbers and what you described in london is amazing. but maybe people feel it's an adequate tradeoff for keeping us safer. >> cenk: that's the problem with the tradeoff in my opinion. we don't get these guys through surveillance ahead of time, usually. look it might be complicated because we don't know what happened in canada, for example what tipped us off. it's usually informants.

but when you have cispa they're able to spy in on your emails internet, but that makes it easy to target people if the government doesn't like them but it doesn't work very well in preventing things ahead of time. am i saying that wrong? >> it's roughly right because the big issue here is the fact that we've decideed that security is worth giving up liberty. which is a very interesting government when you place it against the gun debate where you have people saying any sort of control on weapons is a victory for totalitarianism. on one hand the gun debate is talking about protecting certain rights that we're okay with everywhere else. here in d.c. we have cameras on every other corner particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where it's cheaper for police departments to watch people rather than sending squad cars or have cops on the beat. but the problem behind that is

you have to be truthful of your governmentment that they're going to use these cameras in the right ray. in d.c. there have been a couple of high pro high profile case versus been used to spy on people or catching people in embarrassing situations to make fun of them. in often you have about the right level. in boston you have 60,000, that's one camera in every thousand people. in london, they need this. but to me its worrisome. i don't like it very much as a civil liberties issue. it did prove to be worth while in this case, but how much do you trust your government. >> cenk: i think a lot of private cameras lord and taylor's, the department store that had wound up getting some of the footage of these guys,

and that's afterwards, right? i think they helped a lot. so it's really a mixed bag. >> well, in these cases it's always a lucky break. it's always the suspect who is driving down the street with a busted taillight. in this one the cameras were useful. they probably would have caught them any way given the fact that there were so many clues but it was just to accelerate the process. but i think it's too much, that's the best way i can put it it. >> cenk: benjamin franklin, do you want to trade, and i'm going to butcher this, but if you want to trade your liberty you'll have neither. a poll that asks, a government that does not go far neur about terrorism because of concerns of constitutional rights or go they

too far and compromise constitutional rights. 41% said will in the go far enough. 48% say they'll go too far and we don't want them to abuse constitutional rights in order to protect us. and the politics on this is interesting. republicans agree agree 64-54. and now the republicans are saying watch out for the constitution and don't worry about protecting us. is this where they're saying if obama is in charge then i'm agreeing with the constitution. it's a fascinateing paradigm shift. >> it absolutely is fascinating. and when you put it in a larger context if you think back to senator rand paul on the drone policy there were a lot of similarities. i think there is a section within the republican party that conservatives can capitalize on, libertarian streak, if you will, but then you've got the neo-cons

and some of the reagan-esque camps like john mccains and lindy grams who are going to advocate stringent policies to go after them. but i do think there is a way forfor republicans to capitalize on this, bring some over to the middle and some from the left who really believe in making sure in due process for everyone. >> cenk: when you look at the politics of this, it's amazing. --the bush years republicans are like, security, we need security. don't worry about your rights. now obama has democrats saying well rights are slightly optional. not the majority, 48-43 say i would rather have my constitutional rights. i'm encouraged by that. but now the republicans flip. is that ironic in that the republicans are leading the way yeah yeah, constitution, it's not just the second amendment? >> they're always citing constitution for all sorts of things to criticize president

obama. on this what you said originally was right. it's because the person in charge of the government is this president. and they don't like this president and there is a general distrust any way among the republicans, and that is it one of the underlying ideologies for the conservatives. to me it's not that surprising. but let me tell you the libertarian piece to this is the most intriguing to me. the last time i was on the show i was talking about going out on the campaign trail with ron paul. these are the issues, these civil liberty issues, the sense of being spied upon or the government going after it's own citizens in the name of terror. those are the issues that really animated ron paul supporters, and a lot of ron paul supporters are young people. republicans in looking for issues that they can bring young people over to their side, this is an issue that is very fruitful if they play their cards right. young people do not want to feel like they're being spied upon, and it's something that could

potentially break them from the democratic party if there is a sense that it goes too far. >> cenk: beth gets the conversation stopper on this one. absolutely right. i think if the republicans--they're always talking about rebranding. forget rebranding. try something sub stan difficulty. this would be it and you would reach out to new people. believe me i know the online community. we have a show online with a billion views and we're connected to those guys. democratic republican, libertarian, it doesn't matter. they don't want to be spied on. it's an interesting turn of events for the republicans and democrats and it gives the republicans a possible advantage if they're willing to take t but that's a big big if. we'll follow that, obviously. guys, stick around. when we come back we'll interview the guy who wrote the book on bradley manning. what the government is doing to him, and what does it portend for the rest of us. it ties in to the rest of the conversation that he we're just

halving. come right back. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.

>> i think it's brilliant. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >> i know this stuff, and i love it. (vo) followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. bill press and stephanie miller. >> what a way to start the day.

[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks." now we're going to talk to the guy who literally wrote the book on bradley manning. he's author of the "the passion of bradley manning." chase thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. first i want to ask you why did bradley manning want to help al-qaeda so much? [ laughing ] >> well, of course you're referring to the most serious of the 22 charges against him aiding the enemy. also the most ridiculous of the charges. i think it has a slim chance of sticking. the prosecution is going to have to back it up that bradley manning had the intention and knew that the consequence would be al-qaeda would benefit from all of his leaks to wikileaks. i don't think it will stick. >> cenk: if that's not the case, that he wanted to aid the enemy why did he do it?

>> well, he's very clear in the instant message chat logs with the informants that turned him in. bradley manning wrote that he wants people to see the truth because without information you can'tcannot make well-informed decisions. forgive me if i'm not offended by this. we've had real problems especially in the past ten years by people not knowing what the government is doing but not knowing what the government is doing. and when the public is kept massively horrendously ignorant you wind up invading iraq and doing other very foolish catastrophic things like that. that's why these leaks are good for this, and that's why they're especially good for national security. >> cenk: that's a really interesting take that people don't talk about. that when we keep all these secrets--it doesn't help national security. oftentimes it hurts national security. and the government in our

democracy are hopefully our democracy, i think at the national level it doesn't exist any more but we need n. here is a quote. a popular government without popular information is but a prelude to a tragedy or as far as far as. that's nod bradley manning but james madison. our founding fathers knew this, but along the line we have forgotten it. what is happening here, chase why did obama that is quote/unquote the most transparent administration in history are pursuing bradley manning, how dare you share information of the government. >> we do have this idea that national cluelessness is national security. we learned from previous incidents that this is not the case. this was not cooked up on julian

assange's futon five years ago. you just read the james madison quote. that's the primary author of our constitution whose writing that we--the public needs to know vital information. that is not some goody two shoes principles but it has serious consequences. when the public is kept in the dark and doesn't know what the government is doing, all of a sudden you wake up and you've got a half million troops in south vietnam or you've invaded iraq, catastrophe. we need more information so we can avoid disasters like that in the future. >> cenk: by the way when we invaded iraq, sometimes conservatives will say well, it was popular at the time but seven out of ten americans thought that saddam hussein had personally ordered the attack on

'9. if i thought that saddam hussein had attacked us i would want to attack him too. but the americans had wrong information. >> there is a real problem in this country with information. the problem is not leaks and whistle blowers but that we have far too much secrecy. classified 92 million documents. far too much government distortion and lies. the more information we have, the better we can avoid that kind of disaster in the future. >> cenk: i'm going to do this from memory but i believe thomas jefferson said information is the currency of our democracy. >> mm-hmm. >> cenk: given all of that, what do you think should happen to bradley manning? should he be released right now? and is he in some ways an american hero for actually giving the information that the public needs to make those decisions that the government was keeping from us? >> i think bradley manning has provided a national service just

as daniel ellsberg did 45 years ago. there is no legal distinction between ellsberg leaking of pentagon papers and papers that manning leaked. except that the papers that ellsberg leaked were top-secret. nothing that manning leaked was toptop-secret. leaks are how we find out about things about the drone program and watergate. without leaks we would be very much in the dark, and we depend on them. i'm not saying that they're ideal. what would be ideal is a massiveovermassmasssive overhaul of the extreme secrecy, but until that happens i believe manning deserves clemency and gratitude. >> cenk: and some of that

information led partly to the arab spring. it had worldwide implications in a positive way. and according to a middle judge he was tortured. she gave him 122 days off of what whatever his sense is going to be. i say let him go. if we are going to keep him in prison, we know bob woodward has released information that was far more classified than bradley manning. should we put them in the brig as well. >> you have landed on the enforcement of secretory rules are. you have obama's former chief of staff daily bragging how he liked to leak things but he didn't leak things as much as rahm emmanuel his predecessor. this is a bit of a joke. when a private does it, he suffers horribly. this is not law. this is just pure authority and it is not the american

tradition. >> cenk: we all know rahm emmanuel leaks information. he brags that he leaks information. either butt rahm put rahm emmanuel right next to bradley manning or let him go. chase mader thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thanks. >> cenk: back to the boston bombing, they're muslim, and what implication does that have on gun legislation and immigration. all that when we return. rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter).

>> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

(vo) now, it's your turn. (vo) connect with the young turks with cenk uygur. >> it's go time. very, very excited about that and very proud of that. >>beltway politics from inside the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks."

everybody knows of course in boston there were bombs. but the suspects also used guns. in fact, they shot two officers and killed an mit officer with a gun. there was plenty of weaponry outside of boston. go gun[ gunfire ] >> it went on for several minutes. the police stunned him. in the end of the authorities showed their determination to capture the suspect alive. >> cenk: now, to give a sense of the weaponry involved there were six bombs that were recovered. handguns rifle, 250 rounds of ammunition and the brothers shot at the officers and killed one of them, and they were not licensed. if they're not licensed, and they got the guns you either through a gun show loophole or online whoof, that might be

political trouble for the nr a and visit conservative republicans and democrats. we're bringing back joe williams, beth fouhy and kevin cirilli. kevin, could this an political issue if it turns out they got their weaponry through one of the loopholes we were just trying to close but couldn't because of the nra pressure? >> it could definitely be an issue. that's why we're seeing some conservatives go on a preemptive offensive political strike if you will talking about enemy combatcombatant status and some of these legal terms. as you mentioned if thee guys got it through a loophole, we just had weeks of debate here in washington ending with the nra victory. but if there is a terrorism element to this when we gear up and president obama said he does want to get something passed we could see a whole new dimension

to the gun control debate. >> cenk: joe, doesn't it put a line to the nra talking point well it doesn't matter because criminals can always get the guns any way. if it turns out that they got a way that was simpler because you wouldn't close that loophole, then aren't you helping the criminal, in this case the terrorists. >> it very much plays out that way. one of the great ironies about the whole situation is this a total accumulation of hot buttons, immigration gun control and terrorism civil liberties in a way we didn't expect where we have terrorists who don't look like the traditional notion of terrorists. and then the gun battle, and then the debate over immigration whether or not these guys got their guns legally because they were legal citizens. one of them was not a citizen and how they came to the united

states. they were radicalized after they got here, not when they came in. this was a preemptive strike and we do have a lot of energies where the senate did not equip themselves and it's not going away. it will be a very big test for senators who voted no, and a lot of test sooner than they want it to for the nra. >> cenk: they are muslim but they're also white. my favorite moment was when the right winger argued with me on twitter that caucasians, people from the caucus are not necessarily white, hmm, okay, i don't know about that. on the gun issue is it possible that this immediately reopens the conversation if it's a case that they got it through one of the loopholes that we're trying to close? >> i don't think so. i'm going to have to take a departure from the rest of you guys. i think in this case these two

brothers are exactly the type of people that the nra holds up as the type of people who are going to get their guns no matter what. obviously it's pretty much true. they had bombs. they had ieds, explosives. of course they have guns. these guys are intent on committing acts of terror. they're going to have guns no matter what. they're going to get guns even if there is tighter gun control. >> cenk: they have bombs, and that is not difficult to get. there is no loophole on bombs. but the flip side, why make it he is on them? isn't it possible they would have gotten caught if they were trying to get guns in an illegal way, on the black market, and we were surveilling that black market? why not let them get guns any way they want. >> believe me, i'm not saying

this is a justification for the nra system. i'm just saying these are the types of criminals that the n ra are saying they're going to get their weapons no matter what. you're going to harm the law-asiding citizens and not influence these two brothers who are bent on being heavily armed to get their weapons. i don't think this a great case to reopen the whole issue of the background check or what have you. it's regrettable obviously that this happened, and it shows once again the danger of having dax laws, but in this case i think the guys would have gotten the guns no matter the laws. >> cenk: interesting-- >> but-- >> cenk: it's fair. it is a fair point. and that's why we have these conversations. obviously we'll find out how the public feels about it if it turns out they got it through one of the loopholes. i thought it might be determinative, but not really

because 91% wanted background checks and we didn't get that either. when we come back, the immigration angle. so don't go anywhere. [ ♪ music ♪ ] guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him.

(vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> cenk: now we're back on "the young turks." some republicans have been using what happened in boston as an excuse fought to go forward with the immigration bill. well chuck schumer wanted to point that out, a democrat from new york, but chuck grassley, it did not set well with him why? he was one of the guys doing it when he says he's not. first let's watch. >> i say particularly those who are pointing to what happened, the tesh tragedy in boston, as a, i would say as an excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it many months or years. >> i never said that. >> i never did say that, sir. >> mr. chairman, i don't appropriate demeaning some of the witness who is have come

here. >> those remarks were not aimed at anyone on this committee or the three witnesses. there were people out there. you read it in the newspapers who have said it. >> cenk: now but wait chuck grassley certainly did imapply that earlier but he's saying it's chuck on chuck violence. you want to know what said it? rand paul. let me read you the quote: >> cenk: now kevin bring back the panel here, kevin cirilli beth fouhy and joe williams. isn't that rand paul saying whoa, let's put the brakes on the immigration bill because of boston? >> it's rand paul. and we were just talking about how perhaps the democrats might be able to use recent events and

tie it to--in boston--to gun control. but this is an example where republicans could be using boston to help with the looming immigration debate, and they've been saying for weeks and months that they're only going to go along with the compromise if there is a tougher border patrol mechanism. when you have senator paul saying two immigrants coming into the country from check knee ichechnyaand they could link it and we're seeing a little bit of it when one senator tries to pull back in the senate. >> cenk: it's interesting. and joe, this is the thing. it's not at all relevant that these guys are muslim, i don't agree with that. if that's what drove them--they're upset about with what happened in afghanistan iraq, drone strikes, i don't know, we'll find out but i think it's pertinent to the conversation. but on the other hand when rand paul said anyone coming from an

islamic area we should double check. that's a bridge too far. >> that's absurd. we know nothing concrete about the two boston bombers. secondly they both came into the country as children. he they were under ten when they came in from chechnya, and thirdly the right is running through the three levels of discussion and that is fear. we're afraid of the scary aliens who might become suspects. afraid of a government that will come and take your guns away. afraid of any terrorist act no matter what the motive behind it is because those people hate us. i think that's going to be over the long run a losing argument. keep in mind that they're not the first western civilization to go through this. i'm thinking of london and dublin in the 1970s and 80s where they had their own

political bombs. we're not going to be totally safe from this, and the united states stands on an ideal of letting people come in, giving it their best shot and we have a network of police and surveillance to make sure that we're one step ahead of the terrorist as soon as if we use rand paul's logic several decades ago we would have stop this syrian coming into the country. and turns out he was really dangerous and turns out he had a son named steve jobs who created all those jobs and became the most successive company in the world. as they are thwarting the immigration bill, are they doing themselves any favors or is this going to bite them later. >> i have a heard time believing that they're going to thwart the immigration bill over this. emotions are running high, and i think there are legitimate

questions not connected to immigration but law enforcement. we now know that the older brother, tamarian, was questioned by the fbi. he was someone that the russian government felt might have ties of concern the u.s. government questioned him. by all accounts he was some how lost. they stopped keeping an eye on him, and you know, dial a few months forward and you have this terrible incident. it seems more of a law enforcement lapse here than any problem with our immigration system as the other guests pointed out. these guys came in as children. they didn't immigrate from chechnya. they immigrated from kurdistan. they're originally from chechnya but they didn't come directly from chechnya. they came in legally and it's hard to see the people in the senate and the gang of eight too see that immigrants have nothing

in common with how they came into the country their background and so forth. it's more of a law enforcement issue than immigration issue. >> cenk: and louie ghomert was talking about how they're mixing in with camps in mexico. i don't think they're hurting themselves but they can't help but fear monger. you've been a great panel, kevin cirilli, beth fouhy, joe williams, thank you so much, we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> cenk: when we come back one more final important point. come right back on "the young turks." >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.